VIEW
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Women vs. God
22-Jan-2008
In 1936, Reza Shah ordered the public unveiling of women in Iran. The clergy vigorously protested; women of the mercantile middle class stayed home, refusing to appear „naked” in public. Lower middle class and rural women began to work outside the home, most of them in small textile shops. It is the labour of women and children, with their small fingers, which forms the backbone of the carpet industry in Iran.
Any benefits relating to housing or childcare which they receive are given not to them but to their husbands. Their working conditions are harsh, with long hours, low pay and inadequate maternity provisions.
In 1964, Mohammad Reza Shah gave women the right to vote. Family planning was introduced, with free contraceptives and legalised abortion. Clerical jobs in government ministries, banks and commercial offices were filled with women. Women from the middle class entered the professions.
In 1975, the Family Protection Act was passed. It gave women the right to divorce their husbands, required the husband to obtain the first wife’s consent before taking a second, and fixed the legal age of marriage at 16. It placed some restrictions on “sigheh” (temporary marriage), the custom where the husband enjoys all the privileges of marriage for a fixed period of time, usually a few days or hours. After being discarded, the woman generally becomes a prostitute. The Act was a genuine reform; but its impact was limited to those women who could afford to defy their husbands and fathers.
Also in 1975, the Shah spent $50 million to finance the Women’s Organisation of Iran, headed by his sister, Ashraf Pahlavi, a woman with a bad reputation. The Organisation sent students into the countryside in a literacy campaign modelled after the US Peace Corps.
Shah's reforms of women's right actually brought women into public life in Iran. For the upper and middle class, women’s partial emancipation was part of their adaptation to western behaviour. For the Shah, it was a way of challenging the authority of clergy, who repeatedly called for a return to Islamic values.
Ayatollah Khomeini, upon arriving in Paris in October, 1979, was asked by a reporter what the position of women would be in an Islamic society. He replied, “Women are free in the realm of education and in the professions, just as men are. Islam does not exclude women from social life but elevates them to a platform where they are not objectified, where they can assume responsibility in the structure of the Islamic government in accordance with their development”. Immediately upon coming to power, Khomeini declared the Family Protection Act null and void and announced a ban on abortion and contraceptives.
On March 7, 1979, on the eve of International Women’s Day, Khomeini decreed that all women employed by the government must wear the “chador” (an all-enveloping black veil), an extension of four walls of the home.
Thousands of women filled the streets in protest. For three days they marched and rallied; on the third day staged a sit-in at the Palace of Justice, demanding a legal guarantee for their right to choose what to wear and where to work, at home and in society at large.
Women’s demonstrations erupted in Kurdistan, Azarbijan and Isfahan as well. They chanted “At the dawn of freedom, there is no freedom.” The women were attacked by Khomeini’s supporters, armed with knives, who cursed them, yelling “Wear a head or get your head rapped.” They stood at windows along the parade route and exposed their genitals: “This is what you want, you whores!” The women’s male supporters linked arms and formed a protective barrier around them.
The demonstrations forced Khomeini to retreat; he claimed to have said only that women should be modestly dressed. Nevertheless, thousands of women were fired from their jobs in the beginning of 1079, accused of looking like “western dolls”.
On June 29, 1980, mandatory veiling was imposed. No exceptions are made for women of religions other than Islam.
March, 1979. On the eve of the referendum for the Islamic Republic, Khomeini reiterated his promises in order to lure voters to the polls. “Islam has considered women’s right to be higher than those of men. Women have the right to vote which is denied them in the West. Our women can vote and be elected. They are free in all aspects of their lives and can freely choose from most areas of employment. We promise you that in the Islamic government, every person will be free to achieve his or her rights.”
But what does freedom mean to the Islamic Republic? The first women to lose their jobs were the radio and television announcers, whose presence on the airwaves was considered immodest. Then women lawyers were forbidden to practice and dismissed from their jobs at the Justice Department. Their efforts to retain their positions met with failure. Thousands of workers were laid off in the industrial slowdown which followed the revolution, among them a disproportionate number of women. Children centres were closed down and the new labour laws did nothing to relieve their right.
October 2, 1979. A bill is passed, establishing a special civil court to handle matrimonial cases. It legalised polygamy and sigheh and lowers the marriage age for girls to 13 years. In fact, girls can be married at age of 9 with their father’s consent. Women can divorce their husbands only if they stipulate that possibility in a contract made prior to the marriage.
The school have been segregated by sexes, thus barring women from religious seminaries and technical colleges and halting the education of girls in villages.
The school books have been revised, showing veiled women in the home, raising children and cooking; Darwin’s theory of evolution has been expunged. The schools are used to hunt down critics of the regime; attempts are made to trick children into releasing incriminating information about their parents.
Women’s participation in sports has been crippled; they are forbidden to enter international contests and are required to wear voluminous clothing, even while swimming. Men and women are segregated at all times, at public stadiums, at the beach and etc.
Islamic morality demands an end to pleasure: wine, music, dancing, chess (for a few years) and backgammon, have been all banned. Women’s part in theatre and cinema stipulates that female actors wear Islamic veil.
Soon after the revolution, Mr. Bani Sadr, who has lived 15 years in France, was asked by a television interviewer if it was true that women’s hair emits sexually enticing rays and if this is why Islam requires the veil. “Yes, it is true,” was his reply.
In November 1079, a conference drew 2,500 women, who met by candlelight when the Tehran authorities cut off the electricity at their meeting place. A rally on International Women’s Day, 1980, drew a crowd of 7,000-8,000.
The regime has responded by forming its own women’s group, which produced a newspaper, “The Moslem Women,” which the main task was to inculcate misogynistic norms into mind of women.
The Constitution was announced on December 1, 1979. It regards motherhood as women’s reason for being. “Since the family is the unit of Islamic society, all relevant rules and regulations and planning should be done to facilitate its formation and to guard its continuity on the basis of Islamic laws.” (Article 10).
The Bill of Retribution, a criminal law passed in 1981, stipulated that women have half the value of men in the eyes of the law. In this Bill, a murderer may pay a sum of money, called blood money, to his victim's family in order to escape punishment by death. If the murderer is a man and the victim is a woman, the woman's family is required to pay half the man's blood money if he is to receive the death sentence; this is because her life is equal to only half of his, so the family is required to pay for the other half. If they do not pay, the man can pay them the women's blood money and be set free.
The Bill of Retribution was the platform to which Khomeini has elevated Iranian women.
| Recently by Jahanshah Rashidian | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Journée Internationale des Femmes | - | Mar 08, 2010 |
| Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery | 13 | Feb 04, 2010 |
| Iran Fails United Opposition | 5 | Jan 20, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Research material...
by jamshid on Wed Jan 23, 2008 05:59 PM PSTRashidian: This is another of your articles that could be used as research material. Well done.
I think khomeini's lies should be emphasized, again and again. We should be reminded of those lies often. Those reminders should immediately be linked to the concept of "taghieh", which is one of the fundemental rules of Shia. It means that it is not only necessary, it is a duty of a moslem to lie in order to further the (Islamic) goals. We should be reminded of this often as well.
If Khomeini had to follow Shia Islam laws, then he had no choice but to lie, and then later suppress women. It was "true" Shia Islam at work.
Seagull, I know you're not asking me but I think....
by Rosie T. on Wed Jan 23, 2008 05:15 PM PSTthat if a person accepts the Five Pillars and accepts No god but god and Mohammed is his prophet, with the Quran as metaphorical and chooses the Greater Jihad, that person does what you say. We don't have to look very far: Attar, Hafez, Rumi, all Muslims but declaring their Islam to be universal and of all times, people and places. At times Hafez and Rumi declaring themselves not Muslims at all to make a point of the universality of their message, yet remaining Muslims. These people are not far from us, they are very real in our awareness.
I think Lost Identity is one of those people. And there are many many more. There are ordinary decent people who are more traditional, who use Islam as their framework but intuitively reject the dogmatic, punitive scriptural aspects and are repulsed by Sharia law, and some also by hijab.
I am in favor of a dancing Islam. I think in a secular Iran that is what you would have within one generation. Along with converts and atheists. A dancing Islam. After all, it is Iran.
The problem is the most strident anti-Islamic voices polarize those people AWAY from that goal.
I agree with your values but disagree with your beliefs.
by Seagull (not verified) on Wed Jan 23, 2008 04:50 PM PSTI just wanted to know what you think Ali about this.
Is it possible for a person to be a practicing Moslem and practice the values Tahirih has stated at the same time? if so how?
Peace
Anon3, thanks...
by Rosie T. on Wed Jan 23, 2008 03:56 PM PSTfor the reply. I will read the article. Those two years seem so confusing. I hope I can make some sense of them. Would it be safe to say as a working hypothesis, in answer to my specific question, that the leadership of the various democratic movements didn't do their homework about his past because he promised he didn't want to lead so they thought he would just be a religious figurehead?
That would still not explain why his fellow clerics who were against velayate faqi from the beginning didn't denounce him. Well, again, I think the book was by then over 40 years old and I'm told there were only a few thousand copies. Maybe most of the ones who'd read it were already dead...but SOME PEOPLE MUST HAVE BEEN ALIVE WHO KNEW HIS TOTALITARIAN IDEOLOGY. Something just doesn't seem to fit...
Well I will read the article and see what's in store...
A very informative article,
by Fatollah (not verified) on Wed Jan 23, 2008 02:36 PM PSTA very informative article, though I got very depressed! Nonetheless, thank you Mr. Rashidian. Fatollah
To Tahirih
by Ali (not verified) on Wed Jan 23, 2008 01:36 PM PSTI read the text, I agree with your values but disagree with your beliefs.
Rosie & SZ , you're both right.
by Long live Persia (not verified) on Wed Jan 23, 2008 09:43 AM PSTTáhirih
طاهره "The Pure One"
Qurratu'l-`Ayn
قرة العين "Comfort of the Eyes"
are both titles of Fátimih Baraghání
Qurat al-Aiyn 2
by sz (not verified) on Wed Jan 23, 2008 08:59 AM PSTNo I am not fluent in Arabic but the Arabic words and phrases that appear in the Persian literature I am somewhat familiar with. Hafez uses this term in the sonnet that is said he is lamenting the loss of his child. Much later on when Sayyed Kazem Rashti bestowed that title on his favorite pupil, Tahereh, it became known as her exclusive title. BTW Tahereh is the feminine version of Taher which means pure, unsullied.
SZ, I read in a couple of places that Qurat al-Aiyn means
by Rosie T. on Wed Jan 23, 2008 08:43 AM PSTcomfort of your eyes. Maybe comfort is the literal translation but if it is used widely as a term of endearment as you say the whole thing is best translated as you do. Do you speak Arabic?
Qurat al-Aiyn
by sz (not verified) on Wed Jan 23, 2008 08:33 AM PSTFYI, Qurat al-Aiyn is an old Arabic term of endearment, means the light of the eye, نور دیده in Persian, something along the line of apple of my eye.
R:Bored Iranian dube
by Jahanshah Rashidian on Wed Jan 23, 2008 08:30 AM PSTPlease do not get me wrong, I am hundred percent against political Islam under any form or tricky reform but null percent against any religion as soon as remains in privacy .
Europeans, religious or not, would never accept a God’s state. Christian Democrat Party which now governs in Germany, is a completely secular party, this is also true for other European parties with a Christian suffix or prefix. It is simply a name; many of their leaders even do not celebrate Ester Sunday.
Tahirih--"Qurat al-Aiyn" means...
by Rosie T. on Wed Jan 23, 2008 07:30 AM PSTComfort of Your Eyes.
Emancipation of Women
by Mona 19 (not verified) on Wed Jan 23, 2008 06:55 AM PSTDear Tahirih, you Said it all, Thank you.
Dear Mr.Rashidian I truly appreciated, nicely written article,I enjoyed it.(please write more)
...................................
Not until Mid-nineteenth century in the world's history, women were seen as less than second class citizens. They could not own land, could not vote or exercise most any of the rights that men of the time.
Now, after centuries of silence, women have found their voices and are themselves becoming vehicles for the changes and advancements of the world.
It is quite a wonder to discover that the first Women's Rights Martyr was not even a westerner. She was from Persia , a country still known for its oppression of women. Her name was Tahirih (The Pure One).
A woman appearing unveiled, especially in context of the time and country in which she lived, was perceived as a sign of promiscuity and a grave transgression against the clergy and even God Himself.
She was captured in 1852, imprisoned and eventually executed that year.
With her voice proclaiming a new day in which women and men would be equal she once said:
"You can kill me as soon as you like, but you cannot stop the emancipation of women."
With Loving greetings,
Mona
The English in this article is...
by Rosie T. on Wed Jan 23, 2008 06:21 AM PSTalmost completely perfect!
Please keep writing Mr Rashidian
by Tahirih (not verified) on Wed Jan 23, 2008 06:10 AM PSTAnd do not wory about your English. The ideas that you discuss has substance ,therefor your command of English is not an issue.Keep writing,and God bless you.
Regards,
Tahirih
Nice article that sums it up
by Bored iranian dude (not verified) on Wed Jan 23, 2008 05:30 AM PSTThe lesson here is that both sides were wrong. You cannot enforce the hijab, nor can you ban it. What you can do is to have a secular government that says you can wear what you want (wear a big mickey mouse hat for all I care, as long as I dont pay extra taxes for it), and all citizens are equal no matter if they are women, men, kurd, azeri, arab and so on. So Iranians who still live in this fantasy land that "Iranians will say no to Islam" soon, are quite confused. Iran is a muslim country like England is a christian country. The point is to find a balance where Islam steps back and away from politics, but still plays the role christianity does in say Norway, or France, a more spiritual role. The challenge here is to convince the 10 or so million of religious conservatives in Iran over such a motion. The same people who would most likely fight back a referendum over the Islamic constitution with arms and violence.
There is a check for $0.82 for Rashidian at headquarters
by 75 Million Dollar Club (not verified) on Wed Jan 23, 2008 05:25 AM PSTMr Rashidian,
There is a check for Eighty Two Cents (US) for you at the headquarters of "75M Club" for your writing of this article. Please come and claim it. Make sure you bring a valid ID.
Management
Poetry, Wine , Joy and Inspiration of a beautiful women
by Valid Point (not verified) on Wed Jan 23, 2008 04:25 AM PSTis essential part of being Iranian man.
This is what makes life worth living ...
I do not think GOD is supposed to stop men from enjoying life .... I guess we have to teach GOD some persian hospitality ....
R:NR
by Jahanshah Rashidian on Wed Jan 23, 2008 02:36 AM PSTThanks for your informative comment.
Rosie
by Jahanshah Rashidian on Wed Jan 23, 2008 03:11 AM PSTWhen people in Germany ask me the same questions, I tell them to ask their parents or grandparents why they bent to Nazis.
The analogy of course cannot be easily understood by the post war generations in Germany, nor for the people with no reminicences of a totalitarian regime.
Also, Iranians were not aware of an Islamic dictatorship. When they fell into its trap, it was too late to get out.
R:mazlum Ast
by Jahanshah Rashidian on Wed Jan 23, 2008 02:17 AM PSTThank you for your pricise translation; you know very well that my English is not my first and best foreign language.
Regrds
JR
R:Tahirih
by Jahanshah Rashidian on Wed Jan 23, 2008 02:11 AM PSTThank you for long and informative comments.
Whatever brought this woman to unveil in public, she courageously brook a taboo, a set of rotted fetters which still prevent our women to be free.
Regards
JR
Iran will be bombed
by Kouroush Sassenian (not verified) on Tue Jan 22, 2008 09:08 PM PSTPopcorn time. We will have Islam demolished in Iran. MKO will be put in place. I love you great writers who care so much about Iran, especially in the times that the world realizes the terrorists that Iranians are. Shalom Israel. Rosie I am hard now, call me
Ali please read this!
by Tahirih (not verified) on Tue Jan 22, 2008 08:45 PM PSTReligion is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive. If it be without motion and non-progressive it is without the divine life; it is dead. The divine institutes are continuously active and evolutionary; therefore the revelation of them must be progressive and continuous. All things are subject to re-formation. This is a century of life and renewal. Sciences and arts, industry and invention have been reformed. Law and ethics have been reconstituted, reorganized. The world of thought has been regenerated. Sciences of former ages and philosophies of the past are useless today. Present exigencies demand new methods of solution; world problems are without precedent. Old ideas and modes of thought are fast becoming 225 obsolete. Ancient laws and archaic ethical systems will not meet the requirements of modern conditions, for this is clearly the century of a new life, the century of the revelation of the reality and therefore the greatest of all centuries. Consider how the scientific developments of fifty years have surpassed and eclipsed the knowledge and achievements of all the former ages combined. Would the announcements and theories of ancient astronomers explain our present knowledge of the sun-worlds and planetary systems? Would the mask of obscurity which beclouded mediaeval centuries meet the demand for clear-eyed vision and understanding which characterizes the world today? Will the despotism of former governments answer the call for freedom which has risen from the heart of humanity in this cycle of illumination? It is evident that no vital results are now forthcoming from the customs, institutions and standpoints of the past. In view of this, shall blind imitations of ancestral forms and theological interpretations continue to guide and control the religious life and spiritual development of humanity today? Shall man gifted with the power of reason unthinkingly follow and adhere to dogma, creeds and hereditary beliefs which will not bear the analysis of reason in this century of effulgent reality? Unquestionably this will not satisfy men of science, for when they find premise or conclusion contrary to present standards of proof and without real foundation, they reject that which has been formerly accepted as standard and correct and move forward from new foundations.
The divine prophets have revealed and founded religion. They have laid down certain laws and heavenly principles for the guidance of mankind. They have taught and promulgated the knowledge of God, established praiseworthy ethical ideals and inculcated the highest standards of virtues in the human world. Gradually these heavenly teachings and foundations of reality have been beclouded by human interpretations and dogmatic imitations of ancestral beliefs. The essential realities which the prophets labored so hard to establish in human hearts and minds while undergoing ordeals and suffering tortures of persecution, have now well nigh vanished. Some of these heavenly messengers have been killed, some imprisoned; all of them despised and rejected while proclaiming the 226 reality of divinity. Soon after their departure from this world, the essential truth of their teachings was lost sight of and dogmatic imitations adhered to.
Inasmuch as human interpretations and blind imitations differ widely, religious strife and disagreement have arisen among mankind, the light of true religion has been extinguished and the unity of the world of humanity destroyed. The prophets of God voiced the spirit of unity and agreement. They have been the founders of divine reality. Therefore if the nations of the world forsake imitations and investigate the reality underlying the revealed Word of God they will agree and become reconciled. For reality is one and not multiple.
The nations and religions are steeped in blind and bigoted imitations. A man is a Jew because his father was a Jew. The Muhammadan follows implicitly the footsteps of his ancestors in belief and observance. The Buddhist is true to his heredity as a Buddhist. That is to say they profess religious belief blindly and without investigation, making unity and agreement impossible. It is evident therefore that this condition will not be remedied without a reformation in the world of religion. In other words the fundamental reality of the divine religions must be renewed, reformed, revoiced to mankind.
From the seed of reality, religion has grown into a tree which has put forth leaves and branches, blossoms and fruit. After a time this tree has fallen into a condition of decay. The leaves and blossoms have withered and perished; the tree has become stricken and fruitless. It is not reasonable that man should hold to the old tree, claiming that its life forces are undiminished, its fruit unequalled, its existence eternal. The seed of reality must be sown again in human hearts in order that a new tree may grow therefrom and new divine fruits refresh the world. By this means the nations and peoples now divergent in religion will be brought into unity, imitations will be forsaken and a universal brotherhood in the reality itself will be established. Warfare and strife will cease among mankind; all will be reconciled as servants of God. For all are sheltered beneath the tree of His providence and mercy. God is kind to all; He is the giver of bounty to all alike, even as His 227 Holiness Jesus Christ has declared that God “sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust”; that is to say, the mercy of God is universal. All humanity is under the protection of His love and favor, and unto all He has pointed the way of guidance and progress.
Progress is of two kinds, material and spiritual. The former is attained through observation of the surrounding existence and constitutes the foundation of civilization. Spiritual progress is through the breaths of the Holy Spirit and is the awakening of the conscious soul of man to perceive the reality of divinity. Material progress insures the happiness of the human world. Spiritual progress insures the happiness and eternal continuance of the soul. The prophets of God have founded the laws of divine civilization. They have been the root and fundamental source of all knowledge. They have established the principles of human brotherhood or fraternity which is of various kinds, such as the fraternity of family, of race, of nation and of ethical motives. These forms of fraternity, these bonds of brotherhood are merely temporal and transient in association. They do not insure harmony and are usually productive of disagreement. They do not prevent warfare and strife; on the contrary they are selfish, restricted and fruitful causes of enmity and hatred among mankind. The spiritual brotherhood which is enkindled and established through the breaths of the Holy Spirit unites nations and removes the cause of warfare and strife. It transforms mankind into one great family and establishes the foundations of the oneness of humanity. It promulgates the spirit of international agreement and insures Universal Peace. Therefore we must investigate the foundation reality of this heavenly fraternity. We must forsake all imitations and promote the reality of the divine teachings. In accordance with these principles and actions and by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, both material and spiritual happiness shall become realized. Until all nations and peoples become united by the bonds of the Holy Spirit in this real fraternity, until national and international prejudices are effaced in the reality of this spiritual brotherhood, true progress, prosperity and lasting happiness will not be attained by man. This is the century of new and universal nationhood. Sciences have advanced, industries have progressed, politics have been reformed, liberty has been proclaimed, 228 justice is awakening. This is the century of motion, divine stimulus and accomplishment; the century of human solidarity and altruistic service; the century of Universal Peace and the reality of the divine kingdom.
To Tahirih
by Ali (not verified) on Tue Jan 22, 2008 08:16 PM PSTYou said: "Ali answer the above,without telling me I am an agent of zion,or my religious ideas were made in England or Russia!"
Why does everyone here act like they are completely delusional?!!
When did I ever call you or anyone else an "agent of Zion" or when did I ever make any comments about anyone's religion?!!! This is the second time you are accusing me of something I have no clue about! I really wonder if you are not mistaking me with someone else!
And for the questions you asked:
"why a woman should be half of a man??"
Who says that a woman is half a man?!!
I am sure that the great majority of Iranians (Muslim or not) do not believe that a woman is half a man.
If a women's "blood money" is half of men's, it is not because Muslims view women as half of men. At the time when these laws were made, only men earned money and provided for the family. So, it was only logical at that time, to compensate more for the killing of the family provider than for his wife.
Nowadays, women and men both have the role of provider, so it is only logical adapt the law to this new condition. And the Quran itself allows such adaptations.
"Why a woman should cover her hair?"
N one "should" or "must" do anything against her will. At the time of the Prophet, women did not cover their hairs and they were not being forced to do so. No one has the right to force women to wear or to take out their Hejab.
"Why the age of marriage is 9 years old?"
Every society, tribe or group of people, be it Eskimos or Native Indians or Black Africans, had their own social arrangements that suited them better for survival. Some were polygamous, some were polygynous, some married at a younger age, some married at older age...etc They did so according to their survival needs and biological development, not to "rape" and "oppress" their own women and children!! Now, when some people try to implement similar social arrangements in a 21th century industrial society, that of course creates serious problems. Although such measures will always fail in the natural evolution of the society. So, I am not worried at all about Iran becoming a polygamous society where men marrying 9 year olds.
The ignorant Iranian opposition that does not understand these things, is constantly blaming everything on Islam and Muslims and creating a sense of panic and fear about Iranians going back to 1400 years ago!!
"Why a man could have 4 wives?"
See the answer above.
"are these laws relevant to 21st century?"
See the answers above
This should be the ground rules of having a dialouge.
by Tahirih (not verified) on Tue Jan 22, 2008 06:44 PM PSTConsort with all men, O people , in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and goodwill. If it be accepted, if it fulfill its purpose, your object is attained.
If anyone should refuse it, leave him unto himself, and beseech God to guide him. Beware lest ye deal unkindly with him.
A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men. It is the bread of the spirit, it clotheth the words with meaning, it is the fountain of the light of wisdom and understanding.
Rosei: After 1979 bloody
by anon3 (not verified) on Tue Jan 22, 2008 06:31 PM PSTRosei: After 1979 bloody rebellion plunged Iran and the Iranians into a Medieval age of shocking violence and brutality against women and men. Khomeini deceived the whole nation by promising that all Iranians would have an oil well right in their own house. Khomeini also declares that he is not interested in "governing" and becoming a "political Leader".
Khomeini also reassures Iranians that "In Islam there is no dictatorship".
Keep in mind that Khomeini and his Islamic party had not yet usurped the power. For all intents and purposes, Khomeini was lying to Iranians to exploit religious feeling and build more consensus among different groups in order to fool them into accepting Islamic form of government, which had nothing to do with what Iranians perceived to be as Islam for they have lived in a secular society for more than 45 years.
The consequences of these bold lies were that even the secular/liberal political parties decided to make an alliance with Khomeini in the spirit of cooperation to move the country forward. But as we all know, the rest is history. The next two years immediately after ousting the Shah, the secular Iranians increasingly found themselves in a terrible pit the mullahs were digging for all the democratic movement of the masses. All those who wanted to keep, and extend, the democratic gains did not foresee the gathering dark clouds of intolerant Islam and the thugs of the Islamic Republic Party. By the middle of 1981 the left/liberal/progressives had all but been eliminated from the political scene. Tens of thousands of secular/left/liberal/progressive were executed and hundreds of thousands spent years behind bars.
Also his Islamic street gang bangers were so ruthless and had no qualms killing their opposition right in the middle of street in broad day light. I think most Iranians were shocked by the viciouness of the Islamists but it was too late to do anything.
Below is the best account of what really happened. It's long one but it's well worth it.
//www.democratiya.com/interview.asp?issueid=9
Guys please stop it !lets stay on the topic!
by Tahirih (not verified) on Tue Jan 22, 2008 06:30 PM PSTWhich is status of women in Iran.
Please lets ask each other intelligent questions!
For example why a woman should be half of a man??
Why a woman should cover her hair?
Why the age of marriage is 9 years old?
Why a man could have 4 wives?
and are these laws relevant to 21st century?
Please do not start this name callings,Ok Ali answer the above,without telling me I am an agent of zion,or my religious ideas were made in England or Russia!
To on your face
by Ali (not verified) on Tue Jan 22, 2008 06:10 PM PSTSo, just because you don't agree with my views in this website, I am a "paid idiot, pathetic stooge of Moslem Hajj caravan butchers and charlatans in Iran who assemble brutal thugs and arm them with knives, batons, masks, acids, and guns."?!
You can not even tolerate a different view without resorting to insults and baseless accusations and digging deep inside your own imagination and creativity to make them as hateful and graphic as you possibly can! And you DARE opposing the I.R because it limits your "freedom of expression"?!!
When you have no ethics and shame whatsoever in using all your capacities (in this case your "words") in order to destroy the reputation of your opponents, then you lose the moral authority to criticize those who do the same just with higher capacities!! When you make up such shameless lies in a public forum as to accuse someone of getting paid and providing "knives, batons, masks, acids, and guns" to thugs just because you don't agree with their views, then there is no gurantee that if you ever take "Saeed Mortazavi"s position of power, you will not do the same things as he did.
Any regime is the reflection of the characteristics of the mass. You wanna fight oppression, fight it in yourself!
Thanks for the very informative and well-written article.
by Rosie T. on Tue Jan 22, 2008 05:56 PM PSTI have a question. I still don't understand why people believed Khomeini when he expressed his progressive views. He was the architect of totalitarian velayate faqi and I don't believe he ever RENOUNCED it. So he had a very sinister record. I have been told his book on v.f. wasn't widely circulated and few people knew about it but certainly in the clergy they did. And a lot of clerics disagreed with it. Why didn't they come out and denounce him? Publicize it? At least QUESTION him about it publicly? Why didn't they establish alliances with others to expose Khomeini...
and the others, those not in the clergy, why didn't they do their homework? Surely some of them knew people in the moderate clergy (like the ones now under house arrest). In the US when you are a politician your past comes up to haunt you all the time. Why didn't people do their homework and find out? And if there is no reasonable explanation for why, if it was doable and they didn't, do you think there is an unspoken collective sense of guilt and shame about it.
Everyone I've asked just says it wouldn't have been possible to know but I don't understand this.